ages of the sons? - The Sons of Katie Elder (1965) Discussion

[–] bushrod56 20 years ago

They really needed to have those brothers closer together in age; it causes a serious credibility gap.

reply

[–] jazzbo13 19 years ago

The mother was born in Ohio, date unknown. She was married on September 9, 1850. Remember though, this is a fictional work, not a documentary.

reply

[–] ggibson189 19 years ago

How about the magic gun at the end of the movie? How many shots did he get out of a six shooter? Poor editing or an oversite. Oh well, still a good movie.

reply

[–] ecarle 19 years ago

In the "old movie days" male characters who were supposed to be in their 30's or 40's were often played by men in their fifties -- sometimes, with Cary Grant and the like, even men in their sixties. It was just a fantasy. What was weird was that movie heroes were never supposed to be older than 50, no matter what age the actor playing them.

The problem with this one is John Wayne. Dean Martin looks younger than his real age here, he could pass for his 30's, so Martin, Holliman, and Anderson make some sense as brothers Katie could have had. It's John Wayne who looks way too old.

But no John Wayne, no movie. So there ya go...

reply

[–] tomcat69w 19 years ago

I thought you were gonna say In the old movie days,...All Six-Shooters shot twenty bullets! HA! (Alot of em' did) Love the Duke but this was stretching it a bit,...seemed like the Duke shoulda' been their Pa! Ha! It wasn't until The Cowboys in 1972 when the Duke had a role fitting his age and his wife was a believeable 'handsome-frontier-woman' so many Duke movies have his love interest 25 years younger than him (or more) Is this movie on dvd?

Love & Peace T'

reply

[–] vpilutis 15 years ago

Pretty much the same as Roger Moore being much older then most of his leading ladies in his 7 Bond films.

I.E. Jane Seymour was only 22 in LALD.
The female lead in FYEO was less then half Roger's age

reply

[–] gotsoccer 19 years ago

You're right, the last time I watched it I counted 14 shots from the one six shooter.

Oh well, what's a hero that runs outta bullets?

reply

[–] leadpoisonaod 19 years ago

You fellers are hopeless! I Have The Answers To All Your Questions!

The answer to all the questions is on the tombstones at the beginning of the film during the funeral. Bass Elder was born in 1834 and died in 1898, if you read his tombstone which is a litte blury. So, he was approx. 64 years old when he died. Katie must have been close to the same age, although probably younger, so she probably died in her late 50's or early 60's. Now, she probably had John Elder when she was in her late teens or early twenties. That means Joh Elder was born c.1855. Tom was probably next, then Matt, then Budd.

Also, if you pay attention, you hear it mentioned that Bass Elder died some six months prior to the time of the movie. The tombstone says he died in 1898, so that means the movie takes place in either late in 1898 or early in 1899. From this, we know that Budd must have been born in either 1871 or 1872. So Katie couldn't have gone through menopause prior to the 1870's. If she was indeed born in the 1830's, like Bass, then she would have been in her early 40's or late 30's at this time. Hey, thats when most women have their last children.

After doing some logical reasoning, you can infer the following ages.

John: late 30's,
Tom: mid-late 30's
Matt: early-mid 30's
Budd: 17

Year of Movie: 1899

Bass Elder:(1834-1898)
Katie Elder:(late 1830's-1899)

Yeah, I'm a little extreme, but I got all the answers. lol

reply

[–] smith93 19 years ago

John: late 30's,

Hmmm, his life of voilence and danger must have aged him prematurely. Okay, whatever, I liked the movie enough to grant it that.

reply

[–] Spearlet 17 years ago

If you read any history books (hey, it's still true today), women married and had their first kids when they were still kids themselves. Some as young as twelve! My mother had eight. She was 17 when she had my oldest brother and 47 when she had my youngest sibling.

Doesn't matter though. I would probably make any excuse for this movie because I think it's a great flick.

reply

[–] NForest 17 years ago

It's a film, does it really matter?
You'll be expecting male film stars to have leading ladies of their own age next...

"I was playing the RIGHT notes...just not necessarily in the right order"

reply

[–] kominogie 18 years ago

I figure sure John Wayne looks older, but then I guess when you watch Grease, John Travolta and Olivia Newton John do not look like they are in thie final year of high school

reply

[–] tightspotkilo 18 years ago

A little problem here is that there was in fact a somewhat famous real life "Katie Elder" in the old west, born in 1850 and died at the ripe old age of 90 in the relatively modern year of 1940. She was a prostitute who hung out with Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday in Texas, Wichita, Dodge City, and elsewhere. Her real name was Mary Katharine Haroney, but she was known by the alias Katie Elder and "Big Nosed Kate." Google it, you'll find out all you ever wanted to know. And surely the writers here, Talbot Jennings et. al., must've known this little bit of Katie Elder history and that'd have to be where they came up with the name. It'd be to big of a coincidence otherwise.

reply

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 12 years ago

Actually, Katharina Harony was most commonly known as Kate Fisher- only rarely was the name Elder used by her. She had a son by her first marriage, but the boy died before he was a year old, and Kate had no other children. Her husband died soon after, and she went West, where she met Doc. Absolutely no connection to the Katie Elder of the film. Ms. Harony never went by "Katie", only Kate.

"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae

reply

[–] tightspotkilo 18 years ago

The mere attempt to masquerade John Wayne and Dean Martin as "brothers" at all, regardless of the age spread, is what strains credulity.

As for Grease, Olivia and John aside, the one I loved was their schoolgirl chum, Stockyard Channing, a full 10 years older than Travolta at the ripe old age of 34, and she looked every hour of it too.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] misschicken 18 years ago

Also, if you pay attention, you hear it mentioned that Bass Elder died some six months prior to the time of the movie. The tombstone says he died in 1898, so that means the movie takes place in either late in 1898 or early in 1899. From this, we know that Budd must have been born in either 1871 or 1872. So Katie couldn't have gone through menopause prior to the 1870's. If she was indeed born in the 1830's, like Bass, then she would have been in her early 40's or late 30's at this time. Hey, thats when most women have their last children

If Bud was 17 in 1898 than he was born in about 1881 not 1872.

If Katie was married in 1850 than John could have been born about 1851. That would make John about 47 in 1898 - therefore there could have been a 30 year difference between oldest and younger brother. This could mean that Katie had her first baby at 16 and her last at about 46 which is not unheard of.

reply

[–] Bambifan 18 years ago

Hey, my mom had my oldest brother when she was 17 (almost 18) and me when she was 42, so there is 24 years between her oldest and youngest child. I never have seen the age gap of the brothers as a problem. I LOVE this movie!!!

reply

[–] Lisiboo22 17 years ago

You know, I could be mixed up here, but in an earlier post, Spearlet posted "If you read any history books (hey, it's still true today), women married and had their first kids when they were still kids themselves. Some as young as twelve! My mother had eight. She was 17 when she had my oldest brother and 47 when she had my youngest sibling."
So, if thats you, then that doesn't make sense, because you just wrote "my mom had my oldest brother when she was 17 (almost 18) and me when she was 42, so there is 24 years between her oldest and youngest child. I never have seen the age gap of the brothers as a problem. I LOVE this movie!!!"
It just seems too much of a coincidence. So either you're lying about something, or I'm wrong, in which case I'm sorry :)

@_@ LUFFLEBUNNY!!!!!! (Mine!) @_@

reply

[–] hendrilh 16 years ago

The problem is that John Wayne doesn't look 44; he looks about 60. The other brothers can pass for the right ages, but Wayne looks MUCH older than the others.

reply

[–] brian_43119 16 years ago

I went to high school with a kid, when we were 16 years old his oldest brother was 54, so it's quite possible to have a large gap in ages

reply

[–] jdh1271 17 years ago

Very nice.

But here is my theroy

John is 35
Tom is 33
Matt is 26
Bud obviously 17

reply

[–] allentbone 16 years ago

It makes about as much sense as the Cartwright clan, with father Ben and son Hoss close to the same age.

reply

[–] Homer900 16 years ago

Katie married Bass when she was but 14 and bore John Elder when she was 15. Katie, was 4 years younger than Bass, so she was 60 when she died. That means that John was 45 years old. Now I don't know about you, but my wife and I are 54 and look nothing like our grandparents at the same age. Easier life, better medical care, etc. makes us look middle aged, not old, like our grandparents, who had a hard life. Think back to the mid 19th century and the west and just how easy of a life did anyone really have? John Wayne looked as a man would look who has lived all his life outdoors, working and fighting, who would be in his mid 40s. So with Bud being "almost 18" a 27 year gap between youngest and oldest is not unheard of. How many children did she bore that died in early childhood? At least that's my take on it. Besides, it's a damned good movie, even with all of the above and the 14 shot revolvers!

reply

[–] vpilutis 15 years ago

Back then a lot of people got married and had kids at a younger age

http://www.moola.com:80/moopubs/b2b/exc/join.jsp?sid=4d6a55744d7a45794e544d3d-2

reply

[–] alserrcarr 18 years ago

What it looks strange is that in 1898 the west is still looking so "old" and "wild"...

reply

[–] marmac2768 17 years ago

Very true!! There were even some motorcars, primitive at best, but there were some more technology things by the turn of the 20th century.

An excellent old movie . . . . if you don't nitpick too much!!

Anachronisms are fun to look for though!!

reply

[–] stagebandman 16 years ago

Because it was Texas, and still frontier.

"I thought you was dead" - "Not hardly"

reply

[–] lewis-51 14 years ago

I think we're pretty much agreed that in 1898, John was about 46 and Bud was 17. That's a 29 year gap. That is not unheard of, especially for the late nineteenth century. In real life, there probably would have been quite a few other children, who died young. That was VERY common then. My great-grandmother, who died in 1969 at age 99, had about 15 kids, 8 of whom survived to adulthood.

- henry

reply

[–] artistathome 12 years ago

I noticed that John called her Katie not mom several times in the movie. Which makes me wonder if she was his stepmother. Meaning the dad had John first way before the rest of the boys, and since she raised John from childhood he considered his mom.

That could explain the wide differences in John and Dean Martin and the rest.

However, if Katie was mother to all then why not this?
Katie is typical of women back then, she got married early and had a child at 15 or 16. My gosh people hardly lived past 45-50 especially women, in the OLD WEST.

If we say John is 50 at the time of the movie this works.

And don't forget Dean Martin says to John that "he has not aged well," explaining to the audience right in the beginning, why John looks too old.

So if John is 50, and Katie had Dean Martin at 18, that makes Tom 47-48.
Add about 7 years before the next birth and Matt is born and is now 40 which Earl Holliman certainly looked in the move.

If Katie then had a change of life baby at say 48, Bud would be only 17 at the time of her death.
John-50
Tom 47
Matt 40
Bud 17

There could have been a gap of 23 years before she ever had Bud and believe me a lot of women in their late 40s and early 50s have been surprised. Thinking they were thru with all that and suddenly they are pg.

For me it works because we have to explain WHY John Wayne is old enough to be Bud's father and actually Tom too.

I am 14 years older than my brother with two sisters in between. My mom was only 37 when she had my brother and women can have babies into their 40s. So actually she could have become pg much later on and my bro and I could be more than 20 years apart instead of 14.

reply

[–] rixrex 10 years ago

Well, the general assumption is that Wayne is in his early 40s and the youngest son in the early 20s. That would have made the son's Mom and Dad in their 60s when they died. The Mom would have been in her 40s when the youngest son was born. This is entirely possible, as it has happened that a woman can have a child in her 40s, and not just in modern times either. The other two brothers would have been in between.

The fact that Wayne was older than his screen age is not unusual either. The life of a hired gun in the old west would have definitely made someone look older than their actual years, or the life of almost anyone in the old west for that matter.

The looks of the brothers is something else. No way do Dean Martin and the younger brother look like Wayne and Holliman. Wayne and Holliman can pass for brothers pretty easily, and Dean Martin and the youngest could as well. If the filmmakers would have thought of it as a problem, the easy explanation would be that Dean Martin and the kid took after the Mom, and Wayne and Holliman after the Dad.

But we all know the reality was to get Martin and Wayne together in the same film, even though they don't look alike. Again, not unusual for Hollywood casting.

-----
The Eyes of the City are Mine! Mother Pressman / Anguish (1987)

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rixrex 10 years ago

You're mistaken, watch the film again. He had already gone to the college for a short time and returned, and didn't want to go back.

And just for the sake of arguement, let's say he was 17. That's still entirely possible to have a 25 yr difference between the oldest and the youngest in a family, instead of 20 yr difference.

-----
The Eyes of the City are Mine! Mother Pressman / Anguish (1987)

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rixrex 10 years ago

Sorry, I watched the movie three days ago and did not see that mentioned anywhere. Of course, it's possible I was seeing an edited version and it wasn't there, because there wasn't any mention of his specific age in any scene. I assumed the age due to the fact that he had been to the college for a short time already and had come back home, so I'll defer to your comment on this as being true. Even with that, the age difference is possible if not probable.

-----
The Eyes of the City are Mine! Mother Pressman / Anguish (1987)

reply

[–] rixrex 10 years ago

I just got done watching the scene where he states his age, and he indeed states that he is "over 18", So he's at least 18 and some months.

It's also clearly stated that he has been to mining college for the past several months. So I think the age difference is around 22-24 years, supposedly, and entirely possible.

-----
The Eyes of the City are Mine! Mother Pressman / Anguish (1987)

reply

[–] daddyd-2 10 years ago

Actually when John first arrives he calls Bud a kid and Bud responds that he is ALMOST 18.

reply

[–] rixrex 10 years ago

Sounded like "over" to me, but regardless, we're talking about a maybe 6 month difference at most in his age here, almost 18 vs over 18.

That wouldn't disallow the plausability of such an age difference between the eldest son and the youngest. Especially if the mother had the eldest son when she was a teenager, not at all unheard of in those days.

-----
The Eyes of the City are Mine! Mother Pressman / Anguish (1987)

reply

[–] grandmabrat 10 years ago

my great grandmother was born 1870, had her first child in 1890, and her last in 1920. Most of them survived to adulthood, so this is quite possible. Her eldest was 30 at the time of the youngest sibling's birth.

reply

[–] EyesRed 8 years ago

grandmabrat....you wrote...."my great grandmother was born 1870"

My grandfather was born in 1882. My dad was born in 1929.
My older brother was born in 1958. My sister was born in 1987.
My brother is 29 years older than my sister....kind of unusual.

Though this runs in our family. Both my parents are the oldest and both are 21 years older than their youngest sibling. So to me this movie isn't so far fetched with the age differences.

What I think is very unusual....My sister is in her 20's and her grandfather was born 134 years ago.
I tell her if she could live to 95 she could then tell people her grandfather was born 200 years back.

Wouldn't you know it....I tell this story to an elderly lady sitting in a DR.s office. So she then tells me her story.
She's 93 and her father was 60 years old when she was born. He was born during the civil war in 1863....wow

LOL....what could I say....told her I may stop telling my story for awhile because yours beat it.
I should have asked her when her grandfather was born but wasn't sure they kept records that far back....lol j/k

reply

[–] MAGolding (1097) 6 years ago

Way back in the middle ages when medicine was primitive, Emperor Henry IV had a daughter Agnes (1072/73-1143), who lived to be 69 to 71.

Agnes married first in 1086 Duke Frederick I of Swabia (c. 1050-1105) and second Margrave Leopold III of Austria (1073-1136).

Agnes had 11 children in her first marriage and 11 in her second marriage, (and possibly more!).

Her oldest child was Hedwig-Eilike (1088-1110), wife of Count Frederick of Legenfeld, and her youngest child was Gertrude (c. 1118-1150) wife of Duke Vladislaus II of Bohemia. So her children were born over a span of about 30 years.

Her oldest son, Duke Frederick II "The One-Eyed" of Swabia (1090-1147) was About 25 years older than her youngest son, Conrad (c. 1115-1168) Archbishop of Salzburg.

Her last surviving child, Duke Henry Jasomirgot of Austria (1112-1177) died 104 years after his parents were born and 127 years after both of his grandfathers were born.

As for long generations, Mr. Harrison Tyler (b. 1928) (and his brother if still alive) are pretty hard to beat, since they are grandsons of President John Tyler (1790-1862) who was born 228 years ago. King Idris of Libya (1889-1983) died 196 years after his grandfather Muhammed ibn Ali as-Senussi (1787-1859) was born.

reply

[–] MAGolding (1097) 6 years ago

Queen Elizabeth II is alive 123 years after her father George VI was born. Her husband Prince Phillip is alive 136 years after his father was born.

Prince Franz I of Lichtenstein (1853-1938) was the son of Prince Aloys II of Lichetenstein (1796-1858) and died 142 years after his father was born.

Harrison Ruffin Tyler (b. 1928) is the son of Lyon Gardiner Tyler (1853-1938) and is alive 165 years after his father was born.

reply